Talk:The Art of Seeing

I think it may be best to give balanced reporting of both sides, and to try to be as non POV as possible.

The fact that Huxley's vision was not normal in 1952, or that he may have had a relapse, may not be conclusive proof that his vision did not benefit at all. Many stroke victims, for example, practice physiotherapy, sometimes for long periods. It is generally accepted that some do benefit from their physiotherapy, though many, if not most, remain disabled for life, particularly if they had suffered a major stroke.

http://www.directionjournal.com/vision/gauld.html

See also

http://www.iblindness.org/forum/index.php?topic=52.0

It is also quite possible for some to benefit from a treatment, while others do not; while some of the latter, may nevertheless fake improvement.

Roo60 00:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to include some evidence for the assertation that he suffered a relapse in his vision. Otherwise its just supposition. Famousdog 16:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of material

I removed the following:

Huxley, however, had only claimed that the Bates method improved his eyesight, and he was nearly blind to begin with.

Because, the claim that the Bates method can improve vision is very contentious (see the Bates method page!), and labelling it "only improvement" is not only POV, but is a strong statement in support of the Bates method. Finally, Huxley's claim of improvement is the whole point of the book, so citing the book in an article about the book in order to show that Huxley said what he said in the book is a bit circular! Famousdog 14:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What this meant was that Huxley had not claimed that the Bates method made his vision normal, only better than the nearly-blind that it had been. I don't think its POV to state what an author wrote, and Huxley certainly thought this method worked. Without this cite, the whole article is an obscure anecdote to claim that the book is false. Maybe it can be rephrased? --Karuna8 17:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand that Huxley wasn't claiming that the Bates method had made his vision perfect. But, as I said, the claim that the Bates method has any effect whatsoever upon vision is very contentious indeed and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that it does not improve vision at all. Saying that it had "only improved" his vision rather than "perfected" it is still a very controversial statement. I will try to re-word the section. Famousdog 13:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

References

Article issues

Unbalanced - The lead states that the book "contains an explanation and discussion of the Bates Method for better eyesight." Thereby implying the BM has a positive effect on eyesight. This claim is not countered until the very final section (that many readers won't have the energy to get to...!). Statements are made that Huxley foudn the BM "very helpful" which are contrary to the scientific evidence. No mention is made of the contoversy over the BM and its pseudoscientific nature until the final section. This is an unacceptable state of affairs considering how much effort has been put into countering Bates-advocacy the BM article. Famousdog (talk) 10:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Quotes - Too many and not critically discussed. Famousdog (talk) 10:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced - Very few refs provided to back up many claims about the content of the book. Famousdog (talk) 10:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

POV - Currently the article presents either Huxleys POV, or a single editor's opinion of Huxley's POV... Neither of which are backed up with sufficient evidence. I am concerned that this page could essentially become a POV fork for the BM article. Famousdog (talk) 10:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

PSWG asked for my response to this, then deleted his own request. As that was an edit conflict with my response, here it is anyway:

• The phrase "the Bates Method for better eyesight" doesn't imply that it works, it merely implies its intent.
• "not countered until the final section..." It would be a ridiculous constraint that every part of an article should be balanced. It is enough to make sure that the article as a whole is.
• "Huxley found the BM very helpful". He certainly did. The word "found" implies that this was his expressed opinion, and it was.
• "contrary to the scientific evidence" - what scientific evidence is there alleged to be about Huxley's eyesight? There have been some studies about BM and myopia. Has there been a single scientific study about BM and keratitis? If so, it would be relevant to cite it here. If not, we can't pretend that there has.
• "the article presents ... Huxleys POV". well of course it does. An article about a book has to present what the book says. We're trying to inform readers about the facts. We say what Huxley says, and add that reviewers have disagreed with him. To give the latter without the former would be unhelpful, tendentious and patronising to our readers.
• "I am concerned that this page could essentially become a POV fork for the BM article". The article has been virtually unchanged for over a year. There's no reason to suppose it will "become" anything different.

SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Firstly, I'm afraid I disagree. The phrase "the Bates Method for better eyesight" does imply that it works. Secondly, balancing Huxley's opinion with modern view of vision may be hard work, but would not be a "ridiculous constraint". Yes, an article about a book has to present what the book says, but where that is totally at odds with contemporary and modern medical opinion, that should at least be paid lip service (and not in a wee section down the bottom that - you know and I know - the majority of readers won't ever get to). The discrepancy between Huxley's experience and the empirical data (and Huxley's disinterest in data) should be up there in the lead. The fact that there is little research specifically on the Bates method and keratitis is a straw man, Sam. Keratitis is quite rare and the BM has already demonstrated that it is of very little help in far more important conditions such as myopia. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Finally, as far as I am concerned this page already is a POV fork for the BM article as it presents Huxley's pro-Bates opinion with very little critical discussion. So what if the article has been virtually unchanged for over a year. Its not a very good article and I am suggesting some improvements. Isn't that how WP works? Famousdog (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• I fully agree that it is necesary to preserve balance. The "ridiculous constraint" is where that balance has to be given sentence by sentence, rather than in the article as a whole. I don't share your vision of wikipedia readers being fatally influenced by articles they have only read half of, but I don't have a problem of some degree of restructuring whereby the criticism material is more evenly distributed.
• Your phrase "Huxley's disinterest in data" is unsourced, because invented on your part. He said he wasn't particularly concerned, in this book, with the mechanism of vision, which is completely different.
• Keratitis and myopia are just different. As you point out, keratitis is quite rare, though more important as far as the individual sufferer is concerned. So even if I agreed that "the BM has already demonstrated that it is of very little help in far more important conditions such as myopia", which is dubious, this has no bearing on its utility in keratitis.
• Your allegation of a "POV fork" is quite ironic. As you well know, I didn't create the article. It was created on 1st December 2006. You quickly became involved, and edited it about a dozen times, until it reached this disgraceful state, almost devoid of information about the book, but with a vicious personal attack on Huxley. I rewrote it (February 2008) mainly for that reason, and only later got involved with the BM article itself. If you hadn't been so poisonous about Huxley, I might never have bothered.
• If you actually want to make any progress with this article, you'll do better to start with what Duke-Elder says, as he does count as a reliable source, unlike your unsubstantiated statements, and even though his attitude is positively pro-Bates compared with yours. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge?

I think the best answer is to condense the content of this article and merge it into Aldous Huxley. I suggest it be merged there rather than into Bates method because imo the Bates method article's current discussion of Huxley's case is very good, with appropriate detail, balance, and length of quotations, sticking mostly to the points which secondary sources emphasize. And there may be a bit more latitude in the Aldous Huxley article to report on his views. PSWG1920 (talk) 09:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Huxley is an important writer. About half of his books have separate articles and it is clear from the use of redlinks that the consensus amongst his editors is that in due course they all should. There is no reason to make an exception here just because someone doesn't like the book's content. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You may be right. I recently came to the conclusion that Wikipedia is trying to be too many things other than an encyclopedia, and consequently has become way too bloated in terms of the number of articles, and that affected my thinking here. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)